The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant entered into a contract for the appointment of a defense counsel in a situation where the annual budget was not established due to a misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and thereafter made a decision by setting the budget of KRW 30 million with respect to the delegation of litigation at an extraordinary general meeting. In accordance with the operating regulations on the “execution of the budget when the budget was not established,” the above contract for the appointment of a defense counsel and its disbursement constitute matters prescribed by the budget and thus, the Defendant violated Article 85 subparag. 5 of the Act on Non-Act

Although it cannot be seen, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, Article 15 of the Operational Rules of the instant union can be executed within the scope of the previous year’s performance with regard to “(i) the execution of the budget when the budget was not completed for any inevitable reason before the commencement of the fiscal year.”

(2) The budget executed pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be deemed to have been executed according to the approved budget when the budget for the relevant year is approved, and it shall be recognized that the budget for the year 2015 was not established until January 1, 2015, which is the beginning date of the fiscal year.

However, there is an inevitable reason that the budget has not been established in 2015 as claimed by the defendant.

Also, the execution of the budget conducted under the above provision is limited to the Do’s performance scope within the scope of the previous year’s performance. In the case of the instant association, the budget per se for the previous year prior to the execution of the budget did not exist as well as the previous year’s performance (for such reasons, the Defendant is on such grounds).